Chumps, I'll see ya around

[_Drifting]

So here's the thing, my spirit is strong; but the flesh is weak. I need to know how I am perceived and how you think I am doing. Am I a pain in the ass? Are you glad that I am here? What you see with me is what you get. I have no hidden agendas; I have no agenda save to glorify my God and to love all of His children.

Love,

jo

jo, like thews I think you come across as a nice person.
But interaction on this board will probably change you (or you will stop posting) because a testimony isn't sufficient a contribution to the discussions. You need to support your testimony with something more substantial than a feeling - and you won't be able to. When you come to the conclusion of a thread you will see that your testimony and feelings are at odds with all other rational and reasonable substance and study. Or, if intellectually honest with yourself, it may change your opinions about things.

For instance - you have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is a true record of the first inhabitants of the American continent. Clearly, by any other measurement of evidence apart from the feeling in your heart, it isn't what it claims to be.

You seem to overcome questions posed to you by bearing a testimony about what you feel.
Sorry, but that isn't enough for me in this environment.

I hope you do stay around and contribute because you represent a fresh look at aspects of the Mormon religion - specifically the spirituality element. That has led to some very interesting discussions, at least I think so.

[_Blixa]

If you can't wait, I daresay you could look up the old thread where runtu tried to break down the anti-foundational "foundations" of postmodern thought for MFB. Runtu has a solid understanding; after all he had the opportunity to take classes from and study with Terry Eagleton. Alas, I only had the opportunity to take a few seminars with Paul de Man, Derrida, Fredric Jameson and Gayatri Spivak.

To be fair, I did attend a seminar that Terry Eagleton presented, and ended up having lunch with him, which was a real treat. I know he drives a lot of people crazy, but he is a lovely, brilliant, cantankerous soul, and I very much enjoyed his lectures and company. Plus, he married a friend of mine from BYU (that seminar apparently affected a lot of us), so I've had some indirect correspondence with him through her.

I think a good source for an overview and background to postmodernism is Eagleton's "Literary Theory: An Introduction," which is a short, easy to read book that lays out the development of literary theory and philosophy through postmodernism. It's not exhaustive, obviously, but it's a good start, and probably easier to understand than what I wrote in my series of posts.

I'm not surprised that Blixa has studied with the people she has; it shows in her thorough understanding of postmodern thought and theory. I have always had a soft spot for De Man, maybe because he's so evil. In grad school, we used to call his theory De Maniacal. LOL

For anyone to talk down to Blixa on these issues is silly and completely unwarranted.

I met both de Man and Derrida at a series of lectures and open graduate seminars at Cornell. de Man was aloof and hard to read and the entire seminar was mostly a series of snipes between him and Jonathan Culler. Derrida, though, was a total showboat and not above making jokes about the famous Ithaca gorges and the abyss.

[_Runtu]

jo,

I'm glad you're here, and no, you are not a pain in anyone's butt. It's great that you are willing to share your thoughts and beliefs here, and even your testimony. I would just caution that most people here expect support for their ideas; otherwise, it can get a little hairy.

[_Runtu]

I met both de Man and Derrida at a series of lectures and open graduate seminars at Cornell. de Man was aloof and hard to read and the entire seminar was mostly a series of snipes between him and Jonathan Culler. Derrida, though, was a total showboat and not above making jokes about the famous Ithaca gorges and the abyss.

Derrida does seem to have a wee bit of an ego. LOL

[_Blixa]

Hey jo...

You're not a pain in the butt. You do have a different take on things LDS and I enjoy hearing about it. Even if you and I don't agree on some things, you strike me as thoughtful enough to not let that impede any conversation we may have.

I'm not concerned about the state of anyone's testimony and I don't care if one is a believer or not. My interests on this board are much more historical than theological, so I rarely get into discussions where religious belief is battled about.

[_Blixa]

I met both de Man and Derrida at a series of lectures and open graduate seminars at Cornell. de Man was aloof and hard to read and the entire seminar was mostly a series of snipes between him and Jonathan Culler. Derrida, though, was a total showboat and not above making jokes about the famous Ithaca gorges and the abyss.

Derrida does seem to have a wee bit of an ego. LOL

But no man ever wore wide wale corduroy better...

[_Runtu]

Hey jo...

You're not a pain in the butt. You do have a different take on things LDS and I enjoy hearing about it. Even if you and I don't agree on some things, you strike me as thoughtful enough to not let that impede any conversation we may have.

I'm not concerned about the state of anyone's testimony and I don't care if one is a believer or not. My interests on this board are much more historical than theological, so I rarely get into discussions where religious belief is battled about.

Well said. If I haven't said it before, it's clear to me that a testimony is personal, so I have never questioned or challenged anyone's testimony, much less tried to affect it. Your testimony is yours, not mine, so I cannot make judgments about it.

[_Morley]

Anyone want to suggest a primer on postmodernity? You can post it here or shoot me a PM. Thanks.

If you can wait til the weekend (and possibly remind me again because I'm in the last week of the semester), I'll pm you the two page handout I use to introduce postmodern ideas to freshmen as well as a suggested introductory text or two.

Stak is very kind. I would not say I have published a great deal on postmodernism, but I have taught classes in postmodern theory for close to 25 years now. I also once directed a person's master's thesis on postmodern theory for a dual masters in philosophy and literature. I also exist in traces on the margin: I show up in a book on Gayatri Spivak and in the Index, next to the name Marx, Karl, in a book on postmodernity and Latin American art and in the footnotes of a couple of books on pedagogy and postmodernism.

If you can't wait, I daresay you could look up the old thread where runtu tried to break down the anti-foundational "foundations" of postmodern thought for MFB. Runtu has a solid understanding; after all he had the opportunity to take classes from and study with Terry Eagleton. Alas, I only had the opportunity to take a few seminars with Paul de Man, Derrida, Fredric Jameson and Gayatri Spivak.

Thank you, Blixa, you're always most gracious.

I'm really looking forward to your handout. I won't be around this weekend, but I'll remind you before the beginning of the new year.

[_Morley]

If you can't wait, I daresay you could look up the old thread where runtu tried to break down the anti-foundational "foundations" of postmodern thought for MFB. Runtu has a solid understanding; after all he had the opportunity to take classes from and study with Terry Eagleton. Alas, I only had the opportunity to take a few seminars with Paul de Man, Derrida, Fredric Jameson and Gayatri Spivak.

To be fair, I did attend a seminar that Terry Eagleton presented, and ended up having lunch with him, which was a real treat. I know he drives a lot of people crazy, but he is a lovely, brilliant, cantankerous soul, and I very much enjoyed his lectures and company. Plus, he married a friend of mine from BYU (that seminar apparently affected a lot of us), so I've had some indirect correspondence with him through her.

I think a good source for an overview and background to postmodernism is Eagleton's "Literary Theory: An Introduction," which is a short, easy to read book that lays out the development of literary theory and philosophy through postmodernism. It's not exhaustive, obviously, but it's a good start, and probably easier to understand than what I wrote in my series of posts.

I'm not surprised that Blixa has studied with the people she has; it shows in her thorough understanding of postmodern thought and theory. I have always had a soft spot for De Man, maybe because he's so evil. In grad school, we used to call his theory De Maniacal. LOL

For anyone to talk down to Blixa on these issues is silly and completely unwarranted.

Thanks, Runtu. I appreciate your recommendation. I just bought Literary Theory. (I swear that Amazon gets a tithe of my income.)

[_jo1952]

I agree with this.

Awesome!

I don't see anything in the world the way that I used to. You ALL have something to offer one another. I'm still stuck in the world, while my spirit grows in understanding. So the world still has power over my physical being; yet my spirit belongs to Father. I love my Father and my Savior so much.

Do you mean your dad and your God? According to Christianity, there is only one God. According to Joseph Smith, he is a God.

Hahaha - I mean my Heavenly Father and also Jesus Christ. The LDS did not teach me anything new when they taught that they were separate Beings. I believed they were separate individual Beings all of my life. I joined the Church at the age of 22 - so this was not a new concept to me.

It would be nice if conversations were finished. Acknowledging someone (critic) has made a valid point you simply cannot answer with sound logic is an option, but the other option is to simply fade from the conversation. You seem like a nice person, but I don't understand how you can place faith in occult seer stones bringing a message from God, nor an incorrectly translated passage from the pagan book of the dead as Christian. In other words, your spirituality is rooted in a religion that isn't from God (in my opinion).

I would appreciate it if you would not clump me in with the other LDS posters. I am a free thinker with my own reasoning skills and my personal relationship with God. If I feel someone has made a valid point, I will say so. If I feel their point is not valid or "sound logic" I will say so. Neither can prove the other is correct. In fact, I do not believe that "correct" doctrine has any power to gain our salvation or even Exaltation. It is the exchange of ideas and what we believe that interests me. If an anti-LDS has nothing better to add to a conversation than the same old mantras which I have already heard hundreds of times before, than that poster has nothing of value for me to respond to. However, as I meet each new poster to find out what they do believe, I am not able to learn anything if all they tell me about is what they don't believe. For someone to expect to have any kind of learning or edifying conversation discussing what they don't believe, then what has been accomplished? So, simply stating you do not agree with the LDS Church for such and such a reason, should then be followed with what you DO believe. Trying to tear apart what someone else holds sacred means nothing if you are not willing to then share what YOU hold sacred....In other words, at least have the courage to offer what your beliefs about GOD (not men) look like. If you happen to not believe in God at all, we can still discuss what you DO believe.

So what if you don't think Joseph Smith was a good enough person in order to be a Prophet according to your standards? Offer the reasons you believe the Prophets of the Old Testament WERE Prophets - what was different about them with their weaknesses and fallibilities which you are able to look past and still accept them as Prophets? Of course, the tough thing about that is we just don't have the same type of information available about them which we have available about Joseph Smith. Their records are long gone. Consider, for instance, Abraham telling the people that God told him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. What people, today, would be able to wrap their heads around that concept, and then think that Abraham was a sane person? Or how could they see how it is he took his wife's handmaiden to bed, had a son with her, and then kicked them both out of his household into the desert and believe that this guy even had a heart. Yet he is the first Patriarch - and the one whom the Jews revere as their own father - the one who covenanted with God?

So you see, these are the types of conversations I enjoy. The type that make us think about what our beliefs really look like; tough questions and all. Leave the ad hom attacks out.

Religion is not God. My relationship is not with the LDS Church; it is with God. The LDS Church is the institution with which I feel most comfortable celebrating my relationship with God. I believe that all of mankind can work out their own salvation no matter where they hang their hat.

Love,

jo